MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413992653 · doi:10.3390/medsci13030173

Minimally Invasive Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation: A Systematic Review of Current Evidence on Clinical Outcomes and Surgical Approaches

2025· review· en· W4413992653 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Sciences · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Circulatory Support Devices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCurrent (fluid)Intensive care medicineCardiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Minimally invasive cardiac surgical (MICS) approaches to the implantation of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have gained increasing interest as alternatives to full median sternotomy (FS), particularly in patients with prior cardiac surgeries or elevated surgical risk. However, evidence regarding their safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes remains fragmented. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive techniques for LVAD implantation in comparison to standard sternotomy, with a focus on mortality, perioperative complications, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, and infection rates. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar up to 1 January 2025. Studies were included if they reported on adult patients undergoing LVAD implantation via minimally invasive thoracotomy or sternotomy-sparing approaches, with or without comparator groups. Data were extracted and synthesized qualitatively; the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was applied to assess the methodological quality of the included cohort and retrospective comparative studies. RESULTS: A total of 12 studies involving 1448 patients were included (584 received MICS and 862 received FS). MICS techniques have demonstrated comparable short and mid-term survival outcomes, with trends toward reduced ICU stay, fewer reoperations for bleeding, and lower incidence of driveline infections. Some studies reported longer operative and cardiopulmonary bypass times in the MICS group. Among high-risk cohorts, such as patients with prior sternotomies or significant comorbidities, MICS was associated with lower morbidity and acceptable safety profiles. However, heterogeneity in patient selection, surgical protocols, and outcome definitions limited quantitative synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive LVAD implantation is a viable alternative to conventional sternotomy in selected patient populations. While current data suggest favorable perioperative outcomes and equivalent survival, high-quality prospective studies are needed to confirm long-term benefits and to guide patient selection. MICS approaches should be considered within multidisciplinary teams experienced in advanced heart failure surgery.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.242
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.179 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it